I went to see Million Dollar Baby last night. It might be the best boxing movie I've ever seen. I'll have to watch Raging Bull again sometime to judge for certain. From a movie-making standpoint, almost every aspect of Million Dollar Baby was very well done. Clint Eastwood is quite the talent: actor, director, producer. Oh, yeah, and composer -- he did the music for the film, too.

I won't say anything more about the movie itself, 'cause if you haven't heard already, there's a "secret" and if it hasn't already been spoiled for you, I don't want to be the one that spoils it. Curses, Bill Maher, for spoiling it for me last week! I had been doing so well avoiding press about the movie. I have issues with some of the content, but it's a good movie and worth watching. Even if you don't like boxing.

ETA: An article at findlaw.com does a good job of spoiling the movie, if you're so inclined to know the ending without seeing the movie. The article also hits on one of my favorite aspects of law -- copyright law -- by asking the question: "The Controversy Over Politically-Motivated "Million Dollar Baby" Spoilers: Do They Violate Copyright Law By Destroying Market Demand For the Movie?" It's a good article.

Spoilers do kinda suck. But, IM<HO, after a certain amount of time, spoilers in any film become fair game when discussing said film.

Oh, sure, it's too soon for Million Dollar Baby but I finally got around to watching The Sixth Sense this weekend. Unfortunately, I had stumbled across the spoiler a couple of years ago but I couldn't get too mad as the film had already been out for a couple of years at that point.

(Still having coherence problems, it seems, but I think the point gets across.)

Exactly. Here's my spoiler guidelines: for a TV show, I won't spoil something in the current season. For a movie, I won't spoil it until it's been on released on DVD for a month or so. For a book... hrm... I don't really have a guideline.

I find the 1st amendment argument to be bogus since spoilers do not prevent or even inhibit anyone's speech. Such spoilers may effect a consumer's decision to view a movie, but only because the consumer chooses based on prior access to spoilers. There is nothing that prevents the consumer from making any sort of choice, much less making any sort of speech. (I don't think there's a good case for saying that the "right" to buy tickets to a movie without encountering spoilers is speech.) The findlaw piece suggests that openly discussing publicly available material is unethical. That is a laughable suggestion. Ultimately, the spoiler argument undermines itself, too. If the ending were such a natural part of the story, then it wouldn't be a surprise and hence would not be so under the idea of "spoiler" to begin with. I don't see how people pointing out the obvious immorality of the film prevents anyone's speech at all.

I agree with findlaw that there's probably not a legal leg for them to stand on. While I don't think there's really a 1st Ammendment issue with spoiling, I do think that it *is* unethical to spoil a movie without some warning, especially if your intent of spoiling is to discourage people from attending the movie.

The findlaw piece suggests that openly discussing publicly available material is unethical.

The findlaw piece does not suggest that -- it suggests that discussing publicly available material in a way that would ruin other people's enjoyment of the material is unethical. The piece suggests that such discussion is indeed fair use, but should be preceeded with a spoiler warning, giving participants the option of participating in the discussion or not, depending on whether or not they care if the material is spoiled. The line may be fine, but it is an extremely important distinction.

Actually, I'm rather glad I read the spoiler in the findlaw article. I'm actually more inclined to go see the movie now as at least I have a better sense that the movie has, you know, a plot, which is not the impression I had before.